reply to post by r2d246
Hi there r2d246,
Of course I am serious.
I can tell you a bit more as you seem interested and sincere. In a sense, my work was human resource based. I am a woman with formal training as a
mathematician. Over the years, I worked in various capacities at NASA, but with regard to my interest in the "realities" of the big NASA projects,
the job that got me most suspicious was when I worked in "human resources" of all things. They did not call it that, but it sort of amounts to such
I lead a small team and we would interview prospective employees for jobs in various roles. We were to make a determination as to whether the
candidate deserved to move along in the interview process. Often times there were 4 or 5 levels of interviewing before someone got to the final chit
chat and got the job or was rejected in a final sense.
In this capacity I was fortunate enough, I guess most would call it fortunate, to meet this or that NASA luminary. In December of 2006 for example, I
met the legendary Emil Schiesser at the time of his Oral History interview for the JSC archive. He is the man credited with developing the doppler
differential approach with respect to making a precision LM landing. The guy can add and subtract and even do long division I would suspect, granted,
and he is no longer a spring chicken, but he simply is not the mathematician people claim he is. He is not capable in that sense. I came to
understand that these stories were made up. Apollo cannot be true as these men are not the people they are claimed to be. These are fairy tales
about things that never really happened. Listened to Gene Kranz speak for example, the guy is spinning bull, nothing more.
Ditto when I met Lovell. He tells the EXACT SAME stories over and over. There is no play in his play. He has a story, or better said, a script
memorized and he doesn't deviate. These guys are drilled. I never met Armstrong, but one of my girlfriends did, a colleague at NASA, with a similar
job as mine. Her take was similar to mine. Not that Armstrong was not capable. She said he blew her away, very imposing he was. But there was no
give or take in his story telling. So she started thinking as I did and do. Something funny is up.
We also could see that the right guy or girl was not always hired and so we realized they were not really looking for mathematicians, or chemists, or
what have you IN CERTAIN CASES.
It is important to understand that NASA is doing real work. This is not all fake. Essentially all of it is real. It is just that the work is other
than as stated. Generally speaking, the big projects, at least in the old days, must have been to cover up for other things. I don't know what the
Mars Rover Project is really about, but the money so allocated GOES FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
And again, the hostility thing, whenever we bring this up, even quietly, privately, with old colleagues, we get jumped on. That says a ton I think
because our observations are meaningful, accurate, telling. After all, we we the ones deciding who to move along in the interview process so we are
good judges of character and abilities.
I could say more r2d246, but for now I hope that is enough to get you thinking in a fresh way. Think about examining personalities a bit.
I love your thread and your courage. I think you're great.
We may write a book at some point, a just for fun thing, so watch for us maybe a few years down the road.
Oh yes, one more guy to listen to carefully is Charles Duke, another incompetent.